We are talking about different things. Sure it's in the company's best interest, just as it is in the interest of someone that loses their wallet to offer a reward. That said, when nothing is offered up front (possibly because the problem is unknown), to feel entitled to a reward and disgruntled when one isn't offered is not what I would call "moral" behavior, as brought up farther up-thread.
It's moral when you do it because it's obviously the right thing for everyone involved. When there's money involved, that's something else.
Just because you're complaining doesn't mean you feel entitled. If someone is rude to me and I complain about it, and I expressing that I feel entitled to have non-rude interactions with this person? If I post a negative book review am I feeling entitled to a good book?
But is it rude for someone to not monetarily reward you for doing something good? That's what I was replying to up-thread. To feel you deserve compensation for a good deed when there was no prior agreement as such is indeed entitlement.
This thread hasn't really been about the article for a while. It's been about someone feeling that people that don't reward for good deeds are greedy assholes, which I think sets a bad precedent. If you want to incentivize fine, but let's not confuse that with what the right thing to do is.
How about a moral obligation? Honestly, it sounds like if a taxi driver returns a bag full of cash to the owner, it is perfectlly alright if they just say "Thank you" and walk him to the road. Legally: nothing wrong, morally: being a greedy asshole.
It's moral when you do it because it's obviously the right thing for everyone involved. When there's money involved, that's something else.